Why do women seem so dissatisfied with marriage? What do they want from their husbands? What bothers them so much about marriage that most are willing to risk their families’ future to escape it?

What is interesting is that what Dr. Harley is saying is (depending on the context) conventional wisdom. Everyone knows that traditional marriage is a cruel institution that “traps” women in commitment, depriving them of the romantic love their noble hearts desire. Everyone knows that no fault divorce is required to liberate women from being trapped in commitment.

Modern women’s enthusiasm for divorce is hardly a well kept secret**. If you are looking at media aimed to women, divorce empowerment is a staple. This is quite literally a shameless obsession. As new commenter Anna mentioned recently:

It’s crazy that every time that I find an article about marriage, it’s either about the actual wedding or divorce. As a 26 year old woman that has been married for 6 years, I’m well aware of the pressure for divorcing. There’s always a “5 ways to know that your marriage is over”. This is how I found your website and it all makes so much sense, even though I’m not a christian. I have no idea why society is leaning towards destroying its foundations.

Yet change the context to the cost of broken families, and suddenly everyone knows that men are running away from commitment. This is especially important when it comes to conservative backing for child support. In 2005 Phyllis Schlafly laid out what should be the standard conservative position on a government program designed to destroy families in Federal Incentives Make Children Fatherless:

The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers’ high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father’s payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers…

We can no longer ignore how taxpayers’ money is incentivizing divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government’s complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without their fathers.

Yet Schlafly is an extreme outlier among conservatives on this topic. Conservatives are the strongest backers of the child support system, and this is due to a deeply held belief that broken families are caused by men who aren’t willing to stick around and raise their kids. This belief is so strong that conservatives end up taking very unconservative positions on the family. Instead of opposing a law that creates perverse incentives to break up families, they enthusiastically support it. Instead of supporting marriage, they support the system designed to replace marriage. Instead of supporting an incentive based structure for production, they are wedded to a crushing soviet style quota system that discourages hard work.

Most recently this dynamic came up in an opinion piece at the Washington Post. President Obama is pushing to stop accruing child support to men who are in prison, since child support is in theory based on a man’s potential earnings. As Instapundit noted, even feminists can see the absurdity of piling on crushing debt to men who aren’t in a position to pay. Yet conservatives love child support, and will fight any changes that don’t make the system stronger:

Congressional Republicans oppose the new policy. They argue that it would undercut the 1996 welfare reform act, which pressed states to locate missing fathers and bill them for child support so taxpayers wouldn’t bear the full burden of their children’s welfare.

“I am fundamentally opposed to policies that allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities, which, in turn, results in more families having to go on welfare,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a speech in June on the Senate floor. Obama’s new regulations, he said, “would undermine a key feature of welfare reform, which is that single mothers can avoid welfare if fathers comply with child-support orders.”

It is important to note that this is not about recouping money from convicts who can afford to support their children. This is about maintaining a credible threat to other men, as a reminder that they must do everything in their power to earn the amount the courts have assigned as their production quota. Billing these incarcerated men costs far more than any amount actually collected, and by making it harder for them to succeed after release it also makes them more likely to end up back in prison.

183 Responses to Commitment issues

If for women power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, then divorce and threats of divorce are a type of climax. Enslaving men who failed to give lasting tingles is a special tingle of its own.

The fact that conservative “white-knight” politicians pander to women is nothing new. It is a character flaw among many to desire the admiration and attention of women, this condition is on steroids in the political class.

“If for women power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, then divorce and threats of divorce are a type of climax.”-Except that it is being in the presence of a power that is greater than themselves, not wielding power, that is the aphrodisiac. A successful divorce threat inevitably leads to disaffection towards the successfully cowed.

What bothers them so much about marriage that most are willing to risk their families’ future to escape it?

The only risk that concerns a woman is the risk to herself. The last concern on any woman’s mind is somebody else’s well being. Any appearance of love and concern is for the self interest of being seen as a good person. Not often needed because of the heroic victim status of single mom is enhanced with her heroism if the family does well or not. Female nature 101 a healthy society is doomed if depending on the character of it’s women. Under the right circumstances that same wicked selfish motivation will actually be of pure virtuous behavior with character as flawed as any childish psychopath. Let that sink in.

This is a society that demands, insists, that men give all the best years of their lives to chasing after women, whom that same society strongly encourages to not give even a single one of their best years to men.

Cuckservatives claim to be the party of liberty and the American Dream, yet this is how cuckservatives treat men, particularly a family man who works hard to provide for his kids rather than focus on generating gina tingles for his wife :

Look at Dr Harley’s other big ticket item, her policy on Joint Agreement between spouses:
No decision can be made without an “enthusiastic agreement”. Sounds a lot like the horrid college policy of ” yes means yes” doesn’t it? In which all consent to any intersexual contact (not just sex) must be “enthusiastic”, a term no one can define.

I was wondering how that SJW concept was going to spread outside of campuses, here it is already working its way into marriage everywhere! And it happened so fast!

2nd passport is the only way to be free of this. Essentially you have a government that is saying “If you are a man with children we have the fundamental right to enslave you. There is no appeal, there is no one who will sympathize with you, you belong to us. You will produce what we tell you to produce and if you can’t for ANY reason or won’t you will be put into prison. You are evil. You deserve this. Your wife chose to divorce you therefore you are no longer a person.”

The funny thing about being irredeemably evil is that it doesn’t matter what you do. This is the ultimate freedom – there is no “sin” in hell. If you are placed into bondage, whipped everyday, told its your fault, and cannot meet the ever increasing demands the state puts on you have nothing to lose. You will lose it all slowly and be left with nothing other than old age and a tiny rented storage unit to live in after all is said and done. You won’t see your children much and even if you can you are beneath them with no authority to help or shape their lives and they will sense this. In the long run is it better if daddy is a slave *who said no and broke free to escape to greener pastures* or is it better that he was a good little n*ggah and did what his thousands of a massahs told him to do occasionally landing in jail when he couldn’t pick enough cotton (that lazy good for nothing SOB).

You can’t be both a father and a slave to, your former wife, your children, and the state. The systems most pernicious and least publicized feature is that puts fathers firmly beneath their own children in terms of authority. After all the children become chits that dictate how much the slave needs to produce and children *are aware of this fact*. Anytime daddy disciplines or displeases them all they have to do is cry to mommy who immediately calls in the state to stomp on that man and put him in his place. A chance to punish her ex who is totally at fault for her decision to divorce? That’s a no-brainer and since women despise weakness above all in men AND THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO JUST THAT TO EVERYMAN it isn’t like the ex is going to have any respect for her slave. After he is brought low beneath her feet she realizes that YES! it was the right thing to divorce! Look at this simpering weakling why did I wait so long?!?! Now why can’t I find a good man?

Pick up and leave. Work on getting a second passport and leave the plantation for good. “Oh i’ve got to stay around to look over my children” horseshiite – you won’t have any say into their upbringing, you probably won’t be allowed to see them, and your presence will just undermine their sense of who you are. You are their pathetic father who their mother uses for money and who occasionally goes to jail. Dance for me little monkey DANCE or its the whip again. Be able to look at yourself in a mirror. I would rather face my sons after 20 years saying “Your father wouldn’t tolerate being a slave. You shouldn’t either. If they EVER try to do this to you get away and live. Of course I missed you, of course I loved you, but either I didn’t see you from prison or I didn’t see you from where I am now. Be free my sons.”

If conservatives want the conservative family back, they need to bring back the conservative mechanisms that defended the marriage institution in the past. I guess they’ve forgotten what those mechanisms were.

Conservatives are the strongest backers of the child support system, and this is due to a deeply held belief that broken families are caused by men who aren’t willing to stick around and raise their kids.

Yes, and we should recognize that we’re really talking about male conservatives, here. Part of it is because they–like everyone–have at least fleeting fantasies that they didn’t have a wife and kids tied down to them. The other, bigger, part is that it makes them feel superior to even talk about deadbeat dads in comparison to themselves. “I thank the Lord that I’m not a sinner like this man, here.” If some men who were unfairly divorced, well, that just makes them look even better. There is no personal incentive to adjudicate between men who were reasonably divorced before going on to legitimate deadbeat dads, and the vast majority of men whose wives, lives, and jobs were swept away in the divorce maelstrom.

This belief is so strong that conservatives end up taking very unconservative positions on the family.

They are easily juked. For the sake of argument let’s say that there’s a true conservative stance, or mode of thought. Everything else then, is wrong; zero degrees deviation in direction is right and the other 359 degrees off the correct/zero/conservative line are wrong. In the case of how should children be raised, the zero degree of error line is that fathers should raise and support their children.

Unfortunately, there’s an impulse of conservative people to oppose the wrong direction instead of maintaining the correct direction. So when someone like Obama (whose father is 180 degrees from the zero error line. He was the epitome of the deadbeat dad: black, frequently unemployed, bigamist, kids with four women) has a plan to suspend child support payments for incarcerated fathers (45% off the zero error line), conservatives oppose it. This makes Obama seem reasonable, and themselves crazed because…

(Let’s do the math real fast: Incarcerated father generates $0 income. Child support is 30% of income, so 30% of $0 = $0. Subtract $0 form $0 and calculate the payment…)

…there is no sane reason to fight a policy where nothing happens under the old policy, and nothing happens under the new policy.

Speaking of using divorce as a threatpoint, I just remembered a piece of management advice: Never give an a leaving employee a counter-offer and never take one if given. The pair of articles make an interesting counterpoint and could easily be reworked to be about a relationship rather than employment.

This is simple – women like competing against other women, and when they “win” they get bored and look for more women to compete against. The married man usually tries to honor his commitment, so stops looking at other women. That means that the wife, no longer has any competition, and gets bored and goes looking.

At least that is from my perspective – and I hear it from some of those married women, not in so many words, but that they are “bored”, that their husbands “changed”. Yes – he is trying to live by his vow, and you don’t want him to. Women need to have their egos massaged – that’s why they put their profiles on various hook-up sites – they do it first to get attention they are lacking at home – mostly from not seeing that they are “beating” other women. If the husband isn’t looking – how can she be “better” than any other women? Later – the attention gets her to act on her needs to prove to herself that she is still attractive. That is why they come back stage – to see if they can get one of the guys in the band to bed them – rather than the other women. Same thing – they are competing…

Heck, I have a friend who’s wife detonated their marriage, now 2 years later, he’s banging women younger than his daughters, so now his wife wants him back. Think of how much her perceived self-worth would go up if she could “win” against women in their teens! Of course, he’s told her he’s not interested, which get her angry since he’s not playing her games. So she goes from acting like a spoiled child – to trying to win him back.

If women weren’t so transparent it would be laughable – but once you see the pattern, it’s all too obvious. That is why married women are dissatisfied with marriage – it (marriage) removes the “prizes” from having won – the fact that she knows she beats the other women. That is why the wise man, never marries – it’s a losing proposition. His woman will be happier if she knows that she is winning against the other women he “could” have. That is why I have three women in my core group – they compete against each other, and the women I meet when I’m doing a gig. They are constantly trying to one-up each other, sometime two try to gang up to get the other out. The smart man uses that – the dumb one, gets left. It really isn’t hard to figure out once you understand women are like children – they never grow up and need to feel they are the best… So you keep them competing for your attention – it’s not hard, they want it – so they will never give up what their sub-conscience drives them to do.

I am not convinced of that, except in the indirect sense. My mother claimed her kicking my dad out so many years ago was to protect my sister and me. That is not logical in the slightest, because he was not abusive, just absent, somewhat in her eyes and somewhat in reality.

Yet she did not date after that nor seek outside companionship, in large part due to her (likely misplaced and not completely accurate) loyalty to my sister and me.

I don’t believe she was a special snowflake. I would agree that her commitment (as flawed as it was) is much less common today.

Cane,

You forget imputed income. “You should be making X, so you must pay 30% of X.” It no longer has a tie to reality though, if it ever did. Get nailed on an especially productive year and you can never catch up. Completely despicable.

Get nailed on an especially productive year and you can never catch up. Completely despicable.

Hulk Hogan was reduced to living in his daughter’s apartment for this reason. In his peak, he was earning $10M/year, but since his line of work has a relatively early peak, he got pegged to the higher number, which decimated him financially.

The same is true for many famous men who were at peak earnings relatively early in life (athletes and musicians, in particular). Some very famous men are completely broke, due to this.

Why do I suspect that tradcons will be the final holdouts, demanding that men suffer while women party. I believe even the most vicious man-hating feminists will eventually relent on their manhate before the religious right will.

I say that as a member of the religious right. And yes, I do battle with my own kind every day. I regularly challenge them in the most stringent of words. An enemy I can accept. A traitor I cannot.

Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, a Catholic Christian and author of A Choice Not An Echo has always been an extreme outlier among conservatives. That’s because she takes conserving Western civilization, once known as Christendom, seriously.

President Obama is pushing to stop accruing child support to men who are in prison…

I do not believe Obama is doing this because he has any concern for fathers separated from their children by America’s divorce industrial complex. Rather I believe Obama is trying to create another constituency opposed to sending criminals to prison. Notice that Obama is not at all pushing to stop accruing child support to men who have lost their incomes–not even because of hospitalization, are wrongly identified as fathers, etc. It’s only criminals Obama is interested in springing.

Thank you for this analysis. It helps me to see why I feel so pressured by the media and even psychologists to find flaws in my relationship and bitch about it. My marriage is the most important aspect of my life and I’m glad that I’ve found ways to improve it and protect my heart and my mind from this divorce oriented and man hating society. Men seem so “disposable”, as I hear through the media and some women close to me. But no woman friend of mine, hard core feminist or anyone else would truly love me and make me feel protected as much as my husband does. I wish they would stop trying to destroy our families and make it seem natural and empowering to us women. It’s all so negative to society, since I don’t want to live in a world with mostly half brothers and broken families. There’s nothing empowering about living alone with 20 cats while bitching about patriarchy.

The “Why women leave men” is one of the most disgusting articles I’ve ever read. And it’s written by a psychologist man. Go figure.

Alternative #1: On Dalrock’s website, I first learned about something called MGTOW. But, you know? I strongly suspect that MIGTWUA: MGTOW Isn’t Going To Win Us Anything. It’s purely a defensive play for the individual man. It will take time on a literally generational scale (25y?) to have sociological effect, by strongly signalling to women and to governments that the current régime [per all the above] has literally less than nothing to offer men.

Alternative #2: Screwing around (PUA, fornication/adultery; pick your word for it). Some here (including myself) consider that to be merely an extension of the social destruction and disintegration discussed here generally. PUA types may wish to ask how long a society can last if — purely hypothetically, obviously — every “Beta” were to be “Alpha”-ized into the PUA mode. Society couldn’t. As has been said many places elsewhere, dishonesty can only be profitable anywhere, so long as honesty is still fashionable somewhere. And that analysis doesn’t even pop the lid off the Spiritual PoV on this option (much discussed here @ Dalrock, in blog posts & commentary threads TNTC). And of course, the hypothesis itself is ridiculous, so the peak-PUA scenario would be something where instead of 20% of the men getting all the action they want from 70% of the women, 25% of the men are getting all the action they want from 100% of the women. The 75% of the men shut out in the sexual cold, by this sort of social arrangement, would outnumber the hypothetical 25% “sexual winners” by a factor of 3:1. I cannot think of a social arrangement better guaranteed to end in extremently violent social upheaval. In other words, it could never get that far, before collapsing. So, without even having to pay attention to concepts like “Sin”, I am forced to conclude that the PUA crowd are just socio-sexual parasites.

But there is another aspect to that mode, which I don’t see mentioned here much: in the same way legislators can “impute income”, they can also “impute marriage”. It’s not coming: it’s here, as our host and the commenters here know. So: PUAs & Harem-builders? You think you’ve escaped? Good luck with that, hunh?

Alternative #4: Emigrate (i.e., from US, UK, Australia, etc.) to “Overseas”. There are various costs associated, which put this out of the reach of most men, and most young men. And, FI manifests as ideology, but that’s just because of how Marxism cross-pollinated with FI to give rise to political feminism. In the end, it’s biological, and biology trumps ideology (e.g., “Hypergamy doesn’t care.”, as IIRC Rollo Tomassi puts it). So, the potential of this social situation exists everywhere, and the globalization of culture (People watching Dallas reruns in Tanzania, Science Fiction stories written in Mandarin Chinese in 2014, on sale in English translation on the shelves at Schuler Books in 2015, etc.) means the ideological Frame for it is spreading, too.
I am confident that the window for this is closing (again, on a generational time-scale). Except, that is, in those cultures out there that reject utterly the Western Civilizational Values off of which Political Feminism parasitizes.

Alternative #5: Take all your money to Las Vegas and count your winnings.

Sorry. I meant to write: Take all your life to The Altar and count your blessings. Which of course, these days, is so remarkably different from taking all your money to Las Vegas, etc.

Question #1: If any of you can see something I left off this list, I would really like to know about it.

Consequently, all I can see up ahead, is social collapse. Those of you who choose to cast that in the light of Religious Apocalypticism, and those of you who don’t, agree with this.

But my second question is directed at everyone else: Do you actually foresee the possibility of any other outcome than social collapse (if so, what, why, and how)?

Finally, the tone of this posting and the content shared in the comments (above) remind me of a quote from the Catholic writer, G.K. Chesterton, writing about a century or so ago:

“The political job of the Progresssives, is to make horrible mistakes. The political job of the Conservatives, is to prevent any of these mistakes from being corrected.”

Ok, so you p’d me off by saying “all conservatives” this and “all conservatives” that. I’m a conservative. Conservatives generally think for themselves, instead of all saying and thinking the same thing. Liberals today generally all walk in lock-step. The Hatch example does not prove your point. There, the issue was who should have to pay for the kids, their parents, or we the tax payers via the state or federal government. Liberals could care less, and conservatives favor personal responsibility. If somebody owes a car payment or a mortgage, such payments do not get put on hold while somebody is incarcerated. Am I sympathetic to the jailed dude’s plight? Of course. But the position you seem to advocate is “hey, fathers, violate the law and we will make the taxpayers feed, clothe and house you for 10-20 years, and pick up the tab for your evil spawn as well.”

I oppose abortion, but given the current state of our laws, to be truly fair, we should give men a right to give up all rights to the unborn child, and in return never be bothered by child support. If the woman “chooses” to have an abortion, let them split the cost. If she chooses to bear the child after the purported father refuses to have anything to do with it, then the entire responsibility for raising and caring for the child should be borne by her. As it currently stands, a man has zero say in whether she has an abortion, or whether she makes him pay for the bastard for the next twenty-one years…

(Let’s do the math real fast: Incarcerated father generates $0 income. Child support is 30% of income, so 30% of $0 = $0. Subtract $0 form $0 and calculate the payment…)

…there is no sane reason to fight a policy where nothing happens under the old policy, and nothing happens under the new policy.

Not the whole story in many places, I cannot say nationwide. They do not get their child support adjusted to zero, or some percentage of the 25 cents per hours they make for stamping leather or cleaning dishes. They do not get their accumulated unpaid support erased on the day of incarceration. It sits and the monthly nugget stays the same. They need to be awarded a change based on change of work status and this may involve an appearance in family court and will be a judge decision, which may or may not go the inmates way.

When he is out of prison he is immediately expected to get caught up, or, again, get to family court and beg for mercy.

You miss the point. The law is unjust. It puts men in a lose-lose: go to jail if you don’t play by the rules or be enslaved if you do. I’m sure you know men who have been done unto by the system; I do.

The “conservative” is all limited government and family values and personal responsibility until it comes time to make women personally responsible for their foolish and destructive choices.

I sympathize with your irritation but when you suggest what Dalrock -seems to advocate- you are falling into a rhetorical gimmick used by leftists and feminists, and you are not making a serious argument.

You must not know much about child support and the incarcerated. It seems you are picturing a certain demographic to which this applies. Not so. Any man can and many are actually pushed into a situation where the ability to actually make his support payments becomes asymptotic.

“The ‘conservative’ babbles about limited government and family values and personal responsibility until it comes time to make women personally responsible for their foolish and destructive choices.”

Fixed. And yes, “babble” is the appropriate word here, because when it comes to actually walking the talk, I have yet to meet one single self-described “conservative” who reconciles what he or she preaches with what he or she practices, whether it relates to feminism or any other topic these people supposedly hold dear.

You must not know much about child support and the incarcerated. It seems you are picturing a certain demographic to which this applies.

Empathy and understanding are two other things “conservatives” utterly lack. In Trradconland, anyone who has any sort of negative interaction with the law or any other source of “authority” is automatically an amoral scumbag who deserves the full weight and force of the State’s firepower and then some (until, that is, they or some other self-described “conservative” are the target of the State’s guns, in which case the State’s guns suddenly become instruments of rank injustice).

Sorry to double-coat with such a broad brush, but the pattern is so predictable and obvious that it’s beyond cliche at this point.

You feel so very free to slander conservatives from behind an anonymizing handle that there are two questions I simply must ask:
1. What is your real name, oh brave keyboard warrior?
2. What label do you apply to your own political convictions? Might you be a liberal, perhaps?

I happen to know for a personal fact, he lied, that “feeriker” is actually a Turing Test
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test] prototype program being run out the the University of California at San Diego Computer Science Department. Either that, or a keyboard that accidentally fell into the chimp enclosure at the Denver, Colorado zoo. Or something. [Sorry,feeriker” ;^)]

Meanwhile, knowing whom a person is, or demanding to, doesn’t answer their points in any way.

I dont care about your real name. I let myself get sucked into this discourse again. Because it is de rigueur these days to sit above ideologies and smugly find ones own belief set to be more nuanced. I dont care what your ideology is, nor that you would twist hither and yon to avoid being categorized….its the new non conformist who pot shots to pedestrianize old labels. So much so that is is the epitome of being pedestrian, too clever by four sevenths in its straining to be different. In that way, its as painfully predictable as what you eschew.

Yes you know a self described conservative who reconciles practice and preaching. Its me. If you call blog talk “knowing” someone. I would guess you are in your 30’s, maybe low 40’s. I could be wrong. It is a pattern in that cohort however and goes with beer snobbery and foody-ism. I guess if you are in that , like any of us steeped in anything, its the water to the fish in how it hides from its own self awareness.

Empathy is something that is best kept under control. Because as a concept it is nonsense. Sympathy, indeed is lacking among the conservatives you describe.

I do wish these pile on comments re conservatives came with a requirement that the writer lay out the specifics of his own nuanced beliefs besides just hitting the easy targets (easy on this blog because we all agree that the conservatives who support child support and other misandry are bad news). If there is found one vestige of SJW buried in these nuanced views it negates the fish in a barrel treatment of the wrong headed conservatives.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Nuance is not a heat transfer insulator.

I must differ with you on that, Yac-Yac. Unwillingness to stand behind your convictions opens the door to all sorts of suspicions. In particular, It causes the reader to wonder whether the commenter is a “sock puppet,” or perhaps an agent provocateur.

By my lights, the unwillingness to put one’s full and proper name to one’s convictions connotes cowardice. This is especially the case when one trades in insult, denunciation, and vilification. For which reason, I’ve gone by my right name since I first ventured onto the Web. Among other things, it makes me think first and speak only afterward, a practice far too many persons appear to regard as too encumbering.

Women put such expectations on marriage that it can hardly fail to disappoint.
Or at least western women. An older female friend of mine (in effect my honorary mother) once asked a woman from some country where arranged marriages are normal whether women in her country expected marriage to make them happy. The woman looked at her like she was crazy.

desiderian @ November 6, 2015 at 7:30 pm:
““I have no idea why society is leaning towards destroying its foundations.”

Because it’s not society, and it’s not “conservatives,” it is apex males perpetuating the apex fallacy to preserve their own power.”

Exactly. Tyranny is the logical end result of AFBB: Dark Triad Alphas unchained, Betas enslaved.

…

YACYAC @ 7:31 am:
“MGTOW Isn’t Going To Win Us Anything. It’s purely a defensive play for the individual man.”

Not from the Christian perspective. MGTOW is centered around the belief that people are ultimately more important than nations and civilizations just as the Bible teaches. It’s easy to recognize when a guy is not breeding at statistical replacement rates; it’s hard to recognize when a guy trains an apprentice instead of raising a child.

I help who I want to help, live free from the abusive & corrupt and worship God as I wish, not as I’m told. Is this not the future we want to achieve for all men? We win.

“But my second question is directed at everyone else: Do you actually foresee the possibility of any other outcome than social collapse (if so, what, why, and how)?”

No. The closing of the frontier combined with telecommunications has cut off any possibility of escape and/or reboot. Without divine intervention, this moral virus will run its full course.

That’s okay, although it hurts. This reality is temporary. From God’s perspective, I suppose it’s just as well these wicked people enjoy this life. As surely as Hell exists, they will not enjoy the next.

“In Trradconland, anyone who has any sort of negative interaction with the law or any other source of “authority” is automatically an amoral scumbag who deserves the full weight and force of the State’s firepower and then some[.]”

IIUC, you’ve got a mental map of the ideological landscape, where there’s a kingdom of belief “over there” that one might call “Conservatism”, and on the other side of a gap wider than the Grand Canyon, a separate and contending kingdom of belief “over yonder” which you call “Liberalism.”

Well, respectfully, I think your political map is wrong.

For example, the “Conservative” party in Australia, is called the “Liberal” party. Same situation in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

And, broadly speaking, what contemporary Conservatives™ are trying to conserve, is what in 1890 would have been called “Liberalism” (albeit from a day and age when Family Law was at a great remove from what it is today, etc., etc., etc.).

Which explains the historical roots of the Australian and British Columbian political parties’ names.

What American Conservatives™ call “Liberalism”, a citizen of the UK might identify with their Labour Party (not their Liberal Democrats), or what Canadians call New Democrats. Meanwhile, the Canadians just elected a “Liberal” federal government where you’ll find an awful lot of what an American would call Blue Dog Democrats & “Liberal Republicans”.

What I’m getting at is this: words don’t have definitions, definitions have words. If I go to the local Walmart and swap the price-tags as between one of the refrigerators and one of the stoves on display, that doesn’t change the one into the other.

So, if it’s the things rather than the names that count, let’s (for the moment) use your American-based vocabulary “Liberal” to designate specifically the dominant political, legal and cultural belief system in The West (Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), which would include individuals and groups often called such things as “Progressives”, “SJWs” (Social Justice Warriors), etc. — let’s use that term for them, for the moment, so we’re agreed what we are talking about here.

Then: Is it the case that these “Liberals”, who are fully running the show (and have been since at least the 1960s; and in the USA, maybe even at least since Eleanor Roosevelt thought the USSR was The Wave of the Future), — is it the case that they are opposed by some single, coherent, principled group with a common ideology, a shared world view (etc.)?

I would suggest, “no”, and that is (IMHO) the main reason why your political map is wrong.

It also goes a long way to explaining why the Republicans, be it at the city, state or federal level, can’t seem to get “their” act together. That is, it’s because they don’t have one. Which in turn is because, they’re just a grab-bag of people who aren’t Al Gore, so to speak. You’ve got “fiscal conservatives”, “social conservatives” (some Religious, some not), “libertarians”, the big business lobby, the small business lobby, and a thousand splinter groups besides. What does Ayn Rand have to do with Bill Buckley?!?

And I’m not even counting groups that have simply stolen the “Conservative” label for their own purposes. Case in point: so-called Neo-conservatives. They are, literally, factually, Trotskyite Communists who decided, some time between about 1960 and 1995, that oops, maybe “capitalism” and not “communism” was the “end-state of history” — so, they decided to go off and be as Trotskyite as possible in the furtherance of “capitalism” and “democracy” (and stupid Middle-Eastern wars, but I digress). What they are not, and never were, is “conservative”.

Be that as it may, by setting yourself up as a defender of The Conservative World View™, you’re putting yourself on the horns of a dilemma: you’re either going to have to defend a random grab-bag of ideas taken from, say, the Nebraska Republican Party’s latest election platform, something Donald Trump said last week, and a couple of WSJ op-ed pieces, or else, you’re going to be arguing an awful lot with people who feel just as anti-Liberal as do you (each and all for their own reasons), because their “conservatism” doesn’t align with perfect purity to your “conservatism”.

Hence the flak you are getting here, is my guess.

As for what to do about what (for a few paragraphs here, anyway) we’ve called “Liberalism”, and its destructive ideological, political, religious, journalistic, cultural and legal stranglehold on society, there’s no Earthly solution that I know of, that I can suggest to you.

Except, I suppose (to steal a line from Captain Capitalism [see Dalrock’s Blogroll]): “Enjoy The Decline.”

I sort of seriously doubt the End Times™ are upon us (not that you are saying they are, there), but I’m pretty sure that whatever it is that’s coming down the pike, is going to be so ghastly, a lot of people will very plausibly conclude that they are upon us.

As for the MGTOW/MIGTWUA thing: I simply don’t see how it will bring justice or reverse the current situation, unless lots of (young) men buy into it, and even then, IMHO the effect will only begin to be felt in the very long term (alas).

What it gives men (the men who do it), is some measure of immunity from the sociological horror and legal brigandage of it all.

Easy to legally “impute marriage” to some guy who rotates through his three girlfriends’ apartments every four days, and I’d bet a shiny Lincoln penny that laws like that are going to start getting passed at some point.

Impossible to pass such laws against guys who’ve gone MGTOW.

Not without legally redefining “marriage” into just a generalized tax on all men, for redistribution to all women.

(In which case, the clock just struck Molon Labe O’clock. Just sayin’.)

But, I agree with you that MGTOW is more moral than PUA. (Which is, I think, the point you were trying to make?)

I oppose abortion, but given the current state of our laws, to be truly fair, we should give men a right to give up all rights to the unborn child, and in return never be bothered by child support.
—John Doe

I have a more radical approach. Ban abortion and all infants born to unwed mothers go straight into sealedburned record adoption. Even being raised in a modern orphanage would be better than condemning an innocent child to being raised by an irresponsible, hormone-addled lone parent.

The first time a Ms. Teen-Pregnancy returns to school crying, “They took my bay-bee!” you bet the rest of her teen girlfriends will snap their legs shut. The false glamour of being a teen mom married to the State will evaporate. Shame will return to do what the State can not. The State Child Support/Courtroom Industrial Complex shuts down and a lot of parasites are out of jobs.

If that’s too radical, I have a milder fallback position: Automatic father-only custody. (Same goes for divorced parents.) The father can choose to raise the child himself by the same rules that currently apply to female unwed parents–this includes putting the child up for adoption. Females not married to fathers have no rights to children. This alternative answers the females who whine, “But why does the female have to bear all the burden of raising the child blah blah,” because the ‘burden’ (which so many females fight tooth and nail to grab hold of) won’t be hers any longer. Again, Shame reappears to do her necessary corrective work on the culture of female misbehavior and the State child custody and support industrial complex shuts down. Yeah, the thought of requiring females to bear the child support burden for, oh, the next hundred years is appealing but men are too magnanimous to do that.

Leftist like Obama only support such polices as mentioned in this post, because it has a larger (positive) impact on black men in prison. Leftist have a rank order to things on a case by case, in this situation, that “missing child support” will be paid eventually in a form of welfare to the black “queens” anyhow. When the misery can be spread and is perceived as being spread among the “white male mule” it’s a go, and if it affects a few women, big deal…it’s dissipated enough, diluted enough to not matter.

Having said that, Enrique’s Platinum Rule remains (outside of very narrows circumstances as the CS/Prison situation): It is as follows: That which benefits white women the most/best/easiest, is that which will be.

Feminist and “feminism lite” (meaning, all the women who do not want to be called “feminists” but agree with them on 75 percent of everything), are the ONES THAT BROUGHT US the “transgender” rights, as an offshoot of gay rights, which is an offshoot of “white men suck”.

So of COURSE regular “women”, feeling violated and that it’s gone a “bit too far”, joined with Tradcons to oppose MEN IN WOMEN’S BATHROOMS ! (even the sign shows the primary interest was women, and not their weakness but their right to privacy…while remaining suspiciously silent on a man’s right to privacy and against invasion of women in his bathroom)

Just look at that chick the other day (Kelly McFee or something?) who commented about her husband being shown nude for a second on national TV…her comments NEVER SAID ANYTHING about her husband’s right to privacy or that he was violated…her comments were about HER RIGHT to NOT see HER husband’s penis on national TV, and something about the right of the female reporters or something.

“But my second question is directed at everyone else: Do you actually foresee the possibility of any other outcome than social collapse (if so, what, why, and how)?”

We may be past critical mass, but I prefer to focus on obedience rather than expedience. One way that I can fathom escaping social collapse is, repentance that begins in the house of the Lord. It may take a generation plus, but if the professors that train pastors, teach those future pastors to preach, teach, counsel and rule according to the biblical order of the home, those reforms will begin to take root in the culture.

One manifestation of those reforms include: stop blaming men for lacking leadership in home while the church lacks leadership in society, the hypocrisy is made worse in that the church interferes with a man’s leadership and punishes a man who tries to right the ship; It is the very sins the church is committing, that of allowing women to become the primary object of ethics and ideal of “spirituality”.

At a society level Church going voters will begin to see reforms and ballot initiatives that restore the biblical order and the world of spinsters with their cats and narcissistic sluts will stand a stark contrast to what is the blessings of patriarchy. Right now a false narrative of selfish men who impregnate women and then abandon them is running virtually unopposed, but soon a new narrative of hypergamous females who destroy the lives of men and take their children will get public traction. Laws will reflect the new understanding. Unfortunately, if the church does not lead again those laws will make things equal and restore biblical order.

I expect that such a course correction to biblical patriarchy will lead to riots in Ephesus, when those who profit of the selling of the feminist idols witness their livelihood threatened, but the truth of the Word of God has survived much more in the past and will continue to prevail as long as there are those in the Church that are willing to follow the Word no matter what may come.

Not the whole story in many places, I cannot say nationwide. […] When he is out of prison he is immediately expected to get caught up, or, again, get to family court and beg for mercy.

You are correct. I was being hyperbolic. Most of the men who will be both incarcerated and also payers of child support will also not hold a steady job (for related reasons) and won’t make much if they do. The mothers will still get state funding. You may not think it is a race issue, but Obama does.

Its tough to side with you [Francis W. Porretto] when you are throwing denunciation etc. albeit under your real name. Im trying to support your POV here.

Francis’ “Anybody doesn’t call me Francis, and I’ll kill ya” attitude

is exactly the problem with the people who call themselves conservative. Undelyingr Francis’ bravado is his clung-to belief that he did it right, and that’s why no one has come for him, and that’s why you should do it his way. In Francis’ case it is about how to comment online. If you don’t do it like him, it’s because you’re a coward.

Feeriker was right: If the case is prison, yeah, conservatives are more than fine with people going away for years for being a “deadbeat”.

Let’s put in your Empath’s wheelhouse: If the case is “keeping” a wife “happy”, then it is the undivorced conservative husband who believes he is doing it right, and anyone who gets divorced is doing it wrong. Doing it right means doing it like the condescending conservative.

While I (a conservative) would like to untangle and disassociate conservative ideas from the kind of people who choose to identify as conservative…I can’t. They keep following along.

Cane
Maybe we need a new identifier. Conservative will be cuckservative. Then we will have the identifier for the current connotation for conservative (though as discussed here for a red pill man is a negative) should be a red piller or some other derivative of the words.

That which benefits white women the most/best/easiest, is that which will be.

Interesting. Of course, perceived/short-term benefit is different than actual/long-term benefit. There is no doubt that a white 35 y/o old maid in a dreary corporate job is worse off than 60 years ago, when she would have had a white picket fence, three kids, and a husband who works while she stays home.

Plus, if this is true, why are the lonely white nationalists at Stormfront so unhappy, when precisely this is their sole goal?

There are a number of serious distinctions between establishment conservatives and the people on the new right who want to rename the establishment conservatives and hijack their label.

Conservatives are cuckservatives because they are being true to the US Constitution. The US Constitution mandates a secular government and the Declaration of Independence spells out that “all men are created equal” which directly led to radical feminism and all the problems we face. In short, the documents that many in the “alt right” and “patriot movement” worship are the same documents that explicitly condemn them. These people are currently trying their hardest to elect a crazy woman who is openly a feminist: Carly Fiorina.

The US government (followed closely by the governments of the UK and Canada) are at the forefront of spreading feminism around the world, breaking up families, and shitting on decent family men everywhere. Conservatives (cuckservatives) openly talk about going to war against countries for not being feminist enough and have done so in the recent past. For example:http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/6185.htm

In short, the establishment hates you. Don’t be a conservative. That’s just pledging allegiance to your enemies. Forget about the government and its constitution. Start building a new and healthy society of your own, in your own house and neighborhood. That’s the only solution.

I have a more radical approach. Ban abortion and all infants born to unwed mothers go straight into sealed burned record adoption. Even being raised in a modern orphanage would be better than condemning an innocent child to being raised by an irresponsible, hormone-addled lone parent.

That’d certainly be better than the status quo, but it doesn’t really provide much of a deterrent. The ho’s who are currently using abortions as birth control would simply dump multiple kids off at the adoption center — probably beginning at around age 13, on through to 40.

Back in the days of the USSR, there was a crime on the books called something like “wasting social welfare money”. What it really was, was such a deterrent. Multiple unwed babymamas would usually get their first kid seized and adopted out to a normal family, and be warned not to do it again. On subsequent offenses, the women would be arrested after the childbirth and shuttled off to a quick trial and a few months in a work camp someplace. It was apparently very effective in convincing women to get married, or at least quit whoring around without birth control.

In China, today, unwed babymammas are taxed extra, to make up for the burden their irresponsible behavior puts on society and their neighbors. If a woman has multiple unwed pregnancies, it is not uncommon for her to be arrested and taken down to the clinic for a mandatory hysterectomy. No consent form needs to be signed and her opinion is not wanted.

These seem like horribly brutal and “uncompassionate” responses to social problems, but in the end, something like this needs to happen here if we want to have a civilized society. There are, what, five hundred different methods of birth control, most of which are totally subsidized and free for women through social programs? There’s really no excuse for these ho’s to be squeezing out all the bastards they’re currently producing.

Anon, I would imagine Stormfront, like most white racialist organizations, are very male, particularly because white women live in a culture where not much is at stake for them (in their perception). La Raza is FULL of women, because they feel a need to fight for our “rights” (whatever that means). White women on the other hand, as the majority demographic in the US, and with cucked husbands in positions of power, always benefit. Think this:

1. Family Law: This has been completely rigged for (white) women. The fact that other women benefit is merely a reverse co-opting after-the-fact. All those cucked legislatures, politicians and judges have been doing the bidding of what is essentially the upper class feminists want them to do. It has, pound for pound, benefited white women the most, via cash and prizes. To your point, I don’t frankly know too many 60 year old white women cleaning for a living (although I’m sure there are some). White women can almost NEVER lose in any situation.

2. Affirmative action: About five minutes after affirmative action became the law of land, white women successfully co-opted it, as it become the norm in all aspects of our culture. Originally premised on a “white people are bad, it’s necessary to level the playing field”, white women, on the whole, were able to completely detach themselves from that historical baggage and claim, “ya, but we’re different…we’re women ya know?…it was the white MALE PATRIARCHY that did all this”. Thus, we have hilarious situations where never mind middle class white women from middle class families with brothers–getting affirmative action–we have the Sandra Flukes of the world getting all sorts of perks to get into colleges, medical school, law school, internships at big companies, jobs, promotions, etc. The NUMBER ONE beneficiary of affirmative action, something originally created for Blacks–are white women.

If you want to test it out–just see who wins, culturally in your office, division, company, or government agency, overall…as a white male Hispanic–I MARVEL at how white women have been able to completely TRUMP all prior liberal agendas for other people (blacks, Latinos, etc)…and any time any group or person almost gets ahead in line–white women, or their cuckles will shove them back in place–JUST LIKE THIS TRANSGENDER issue.

The hand that rocks the cradle baby. I have a mantra in the industry I work in, when administering RP doses– you can do many things in this job, and some you will get chastised for (like getting into it with a sassy black woman), but one thing you better NEVER do, is cross a white woman–particularly a young(er) good looking one, because the Cucks (and women) will come at you FULL FORCE like you’ve never seen.

Props to Hilary, she got her main competitor (Sanders) to publicly defend her on the email thing “I’ve heard enough about Hilary’s emails…” at the debate, to wide applause. Even Liberal Sanders knows what hand rocks the cradle…he’ll get back in line…they ALL WILL.

You can’t conserve the status quo, because the status quo is unacceptable, nor can you conserve what no longer is, because that is nonsense. Thus “conservative” as a label is merely a label and not a meaningful term. You don’t need a new identifier because that will just put you in a new box instead of the old one; it’s a shortcut to thinking. Conservatism, indeed nearly any political movement, is undefinable and unidentifiable except in terms of what it’s against. At least “liberal” meaning generous is honest as a label in the sense that a liberal believes in generosity, even if it does concern other people’s money. And you can’t ram scriptural principles into these two terms because the terminology always derails the discussion into politics and elections. Bor-ing!

For personal freedom until it is time to lock ’em up and throw away the key for whatever infraction because “that’s the law”.
For limited government until it’s time to salute the flag, obey the cops, and support the troops.
For traditional marriage and family values until it comes to happy-wife-happy-life or no-fault divorce.

I suspect most folks who identify as conservative are as I was and would still be but for the grace of God; they’ve never really been threatened with losing everything, or thought about these things, or read and studied Dalrock or Empath or Cane. And even those who have, most often double down.

There isn’t any going back. This proceeds forward until the massive break down and reordering of society–I don’t say “our culture” because the American culture is dead, we are simply living inside the shell of it. The re-ordering will, I predict, go along natural fault lines geographically, and racially.

Well we have to change the definition of conservative from cuckservative to red pill conservative. A good thing would be for men such as ourselves to participate in “conservative” and Christian blogs and red pill the conversations from trolling to logical shaming of positions.
Or help along with the collapse.

How can any man, in good conscience, marry any western woman under these conditions. The risks are way too high and the morals are way too low. There is very little honor left among women. Husbands and marriages are disposable products to consume. Just like an electronic item we don’t try to fix them. When they are broken or a newer model comes around you simply throw the old away and replace it…

Interesting line I caught tonight on Downton Abbey. Maggie Smith (the ostensibly old-fashioned dowager character brilliantly written and acted in a way that presents a subversive critique of “modern” sensibilities) is talking to a Russian count she held a flame for in her youth.

She tells him her marriage to the man she chose over him was a happy one. He remarks that of course that’s the case, as she would consider unhappiness in marriage ill-bred.

“How can any man, in good conscience, marry any western woman under these conditions.”

I found one born and raised in a good family still intact and observed her parents. Made sure she was crazy about me and that was that.

Rarer than it should be but not impossible. Also spent a couple years before that getting in good shape, getting my head straight, losing anti-game, and rejecting/getting rejectied by a few trial runs.

Dalrock, I perused the linked web site in one of your previous posts on this topic and accidentally clicked on “the why women leave men” link. I still can’t believe it. Every single thing he suggests is wrong. Women leave because they are bored…so the solution is to double down on “nice” and bring flowers, talk about your emotions, do Choreplay and honneydo lists, basically supplicate to the vagina pedestal so far can it be call anything but Goddess worship? In return, she gives you twice weekly duty sex so long as you have performed to the Goddess’s specifications and demands.

Hey Dr. Harly…Dumbass…wake up moron. Let me tell you a secret. Women want to screw MEN. Not these manginas that you are creating- aka DESTROYING.

Dr. Harly…Dumbass…let me argue in a way that you will understand. YOU ARE BEING CRUEL TO WOMEN BY DENYING THEM A STRONG MAN TO LEAD THEM. Your method emasculates men and after you cut off their balls you tell them to TALK ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS SO SHE FEELS EMOTIONALLY CONNECTED? Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the freaking Prophets help me.

I don’t know what Dr. Harly…Dumbass…has in the way of figures for his statistics of success but I think it is safe to say on Married Red Pill we have at least an 80% success rate, probably higher. Most cases show stunning improvement in sexual compliance and…who could have guessed….with all that increased sex suddenly the woman is….WAIT FOR IT…feeling emotionally connected.

Hey Dr. Harly…Dumbass…there is this great instruction manual on marriages you should read some time. It is called the Bible. I recommend you begin with Genesis Chapter 3 and then read the Song of Solomon. You will find a considerable amount of marriage advice in the New Testament. Things like DON’T DENY ONE ANOTHER. You know, like your female ambush coupled with sexual denial technique that is surely in Scripture- Why it is Chapter 3 of the Book of Oprah.

@Anna: “It helps me to see why I feel so pressured by the media and even psychologists to find flaws in my relationship and bitch about it. ”

Dalrock wrote about this in a haunting post called: “The Whispers.”

@jonada_Reech: “if the professors that train pastors, teach those future pastors to preach, teach, counsel and rule according to the biblical order of the home, those reforms will begin to take root in the culture.”

Do you think Jeremiah Wright appeared in a vacuum? Or Pope Francis…….

Dalrock’s blog has shown us that pastors and the teachers of pastors are the problem, not the solution. What makes you think teaching Biblical truths will take root in Seminaries any time soon? These institutions are rotten to the core with feminism, Marxism, Leninism, Social Justice, and even Liberation Theology for the RC’s.

@Francis: –Since Cane beat me to the Lighten Up Francis Video let me just say: Bro, take the Red Pill and read more before you continue pissing people off with your ill conceived ideas. Do you have any understanding of why they are calling you a “cuckservative” or the concept of PUA Game or that Red Pill is apolitical?

Lurk and read Dalrock and The Rational Male and go to Reddit and check out The Red Pill and Married Red Pill.

Your welcome.

Also, your a dumb ass if you think that it is safe to post on manosphere blogs under your actual name. My job as a professor is certainly not safe and many, many guys who post on these blogs could be hurt very badly. Let me translate: Feminist troll brigades could organize a letter writing to campaign to your employer and by taking your words out of context, easily get you fired. I have 25,000 posts as Bluepillprofessor and I am quite certain somebody could find something to get offended about somewhere in what I have written. 🙂

Plus, much of the manosphere is about sexual strategy so…it is easier to tell all sexual escapades when you are not potentially embarrassing your wife.

@Boxer: “In China, today, unwed babymammas are taxed extra, to make up for the burden their irresponsible behavior puts on society and their neighbors. If a woman has multiple unwed pregnancies, it is not uncommon for her to be arrested and taken down to the clinic for a mandatory hysterectomy. ”

I don’t think it is horribly brutal at all. I think it is absolutely REQUIRED in a civil society of free men and women. The Chi-Coms have it right. I did not know they were doing this and it explains an awful lot about our relative decline in a single generation. Here I thought it was all about economic systems but it appears that other factors are at work in the rise of the Dragon and the relative decline of the West.

An idea for you Dalrock:
-There is enough research, statistics, figures and general data that tells us that Western civilisation has a problem with the various sexual revolutions – Sexual/Divorce/Child Support.

-Christians have not just dropped the ball in critique – their responsibility being “Salt and Light” – they have actively participated in the rebellion.

-There are still enough well-intentioned Christians to fund films with a “Christian” world view, however warped, such as those of the Kendrick Brothers. Christians make poor movies, because they aren’t good at fiction.

-So change the equation. Take all of this data, plus funds and make a hard-hitting documentary that exposes all of the rot that the Sexual Revolutions have caused. Expose the cultural Marxism, the federal funding, the tacit approval of divorce at the highest levels of government.
Not only is this Biblical (Luke 8:17), but it would be better supported than the cringy movies currently being made by Christians.

Good points in your reply to feeriker way up thread. Claiming a lack of empathy while exhibiting the same is like the pot calling the kettle black.

BPP,

The writings of Dalrock and others have shown that people are the problem. People will remain with us even if you shot every last pastor tomorrow. It is ultimately called sin. Ignoring that makes for bad policy.

> It will take time on a literally generational scale (25y?) to have sociological effect,
> by strongly signalling to women and to governments that the current régime [per all
> the above] has literally less than nothing to offer men.

YacYac… the basic MGTOW ideas were developed in the late-90s, but maybe your clock hasn’t started ticking yet. The Great American Man Shortage was the title of a book written in 1983. Women will never “come to their senses” or “figure it out”, because feminism always boils down to some woman screaming “Why doesn’t some man do something?!”.

Zed always said it would take decades/generations for women to un-poison the well they would like to drink from, to re-learn the value of having individual men in their lives.

I don’t see even an inkling of a start that women are going to rise up, defeat feminism, and roll back fifty years worth of laws, institutions, beliefs, etc. that penalize and punish men for wanting to have anything to do with them.

The Rules of the Titanic are in effect: “Wimminsandchilluns first, and after that it’s every man for himself.”

The big ship Bimbotopia hit the iceberg long ago and there’s nothing you can do about it except try to save yourself.

And maybe drag as many of the morons who contributed to the disaster down along with you!
When the truth won’t set you free, try revolution and the blood of tyrants.

“The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers’ high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father’s payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers…”

RIGHT! Then combine that with the reputation of women to use this system to abuse their husbands with frivolous divorces. Then further combine that with the reputation of women in the US of being genuinely horrible wives anyway. Now how, under these circumstances, can we do anything other than encourage single men to refuse to marry, MGTOW, and loudly make their reasons for refusing known?

Expecting men to marry under these circumstances is absolutely ridiculous. Refute it.

As long as men continue to volunteer for abuse and legalized extortion the abuse and slavery will continue. It’s about incentives people. Men marrying under these grotesquely unfair circumstances only encourages the abuse to continue.

Some women make exceptional wives.
Some lottery tickets will also make you a winner.

What are your odds?

Let’s say that about 4% of women make exceptional wives. Let’s say that 10% give you adequate sex and food and clean the house. Can you filter out the losers? I say that you can.

Train yourself to stay in an iron frame no matter the 5h1t tests that a woman sends at you. Have a plan to tame the shrew. (Read “The Taming of the Shrew”. AWALT) The plan depends on your financial circumstances. You may have to relocate to a more man-friendly country for the first month. Make her hungry. Use agree & amplify a lot, confirming that she’s a Speshul Snowflake ™ who has every right to feel like an Entitled Princess ™. You will need to go absent a lot and keep her corralled, preferably by a woman servant whom you trust to implement your plan. You will need to make your woman dependent on you and looking forward to seeing you, like prisoners kept in darkness for years want to see the sun.

Find a girl who tingles for you and is submissive to you and is attractive to you and who was corralled by her father while she was maturing. Apply your plan to her ruthlessly. If she stays, she’s a keeper.

Oh, I just realized that you readers might not understand my strategy (which I stole from Bill the Bard aka William Shakespeare). You want your woman to realize that she is not a Speshul Snowflake and has no reason to think that she’s entitled to anything, but your A&A is an argument towards absurdity. You are using push/pull. “No food is good enough for her” is both push and pull. She goes hungry = push. She’s too good for the food = pull.

For personal freedom until it is time to lock ’em up and throw away the key for whatever infraction because “that’s the law”.

For limited government until it’s time to salute the flag, obey the cops, and support the troops.

For traditional marriage and family values until it comes to happy-wife-happy-life or no-fault divorce.

Thank you, Casper. This is exactly what I was getting at in my last post that apparently struck a few raw nerves.

Someone else upthread remarked that the behaviors and attitudes I’ve ascribed to (traditional) conservatives are really characteristics of neoconservatives. To this I reply that it really doesn’t matter; principled traditional conservatives (apparently not quite an oxymoron) hsve become so vanishingly rare as to be all but extinct. For every one Pat Buchanan there are 100,000 Sean Hannitys or Bill O’Reillys.

How about neocuckservative? I can’t think of a more concise term that encapsulates all of the very worst and most degenerative aspects of a philosophy that once commanded principled respect.

How do you make sure this women is that faithful? That is the flaw and circular part of your plan.

Use biblical principles. “The testimony of two witnesses is true.” You have to verify that the woman servant is faithful. You’ll need another witness around–probably an unattractive beta. Question them separately and subtly. Use discretion.

@theasdgamer
A good way for a woman to be physically faithful, pick one who cannot take hormonal birth control due to severe side effects. Without that, she will be much, much more limited as to which partner she could cheat with, as they would need to look like her husband. It also increases the likelihood of baby, so that in and of itself is a deterrent to fun and games. I’ve seen this at work in my own family (women become suicidal using hormonal methods), and I’ve yet to see cheating going on. Worth a thought in any case.

I once read a story about a Muslim woman who moved with her husband to England and after a Few years of becoming “westernized” she wanted a Divorce.
When they went to court the Husband told the Judge that he was Married under Muslim Law and as a result he should be divorced under Muslim law. the Judge agreed. When they went to the Imam to request a divorce the woman was told that she could leave and be free but only allowed to take exactly the things she came to the marriage with, since she was the one who wanted to leave.

My advice to all unmarried men in this Climate is VERY SIMPLE. If you want to get married, make sure you get a pre-nup, iron clad and legally binding that says if you wife wants to divorce she cannot take your kids, she is not entitled to alimony and she cannot get your house. She can leave with only what she brought to the table and whatever money she contributed to the family funds.
I can guarantee that there will be a serious decline in Divorce rates if more men did this.
Until there is Zero incentive to Divorce and ones to stay married this madness will not end…..
I see no reason to go into marriage in today’s market with a hope for faithfulness when statistics clearly tell you its nothing more than a landmine that only luck with allow you to navigate unscathed

…gamer,
Uh, yea bro, I got game. I started plying game when I was a teenager. I’ve also absorbed considerable amounts of ‘game’ tactics the likes of which began circulating the internet a decade ago, like “DeAngelo”. Additionally I’m 6’3, fit, at least above average looking and financially quite well off. None of this changes my legal position in the family courts if I ended up there as a husband/father. Game does not fix the fact that most 30-something decent looking churchian women available for marriage have already been triple penetrated by 1/2 dozen men or more. Game might make a married man more sexually attractive to his wife but it’s not going to fix a wife who starts gaining weight with the very first bite of wedding cake. Game here is like medicine for a shotgun wound, game is not the answer it only helps a little bit.

“A good way for a woman to be physically faithful, pick one who cannot take hormonal birth control due to severe side effects. Without that, she will be much, much more limited as to which partner she could cheat with, as they would need to look like her husband.”

LOL! Seems a very practical strategy… Unless she was a slut how would a single woman know she “cannot take hormonal birth control due to severe side effects”? Why was she taking birth control then?

Another stellar example of why women’s opinions on these matters are absolutely worthless except for entertainment value. Thanks for that Dearie.

@embracingreality
It’s prescribed like candy at the doctor’s office for all sorts of unrelated things. Seriously, take any female in or past adolescence to the doctor with a chronic complaint of say acne, hypotension, anemia, it really doesn’t matter, and antidepressants or hormonal contraceptives are the first drugs of choice. Think of it like Ritalin for boys, a desire to medicate away problems that either don’t exist or are incapable of being fixed as they are masked with inappropriate medical attention.

“My advice to all unmarried men in this Climate is VERY SIMPLE. If you want to get married, make sure you get a pre-nup, iron clad and legally binding that says if you wife wants to divorce she cannot take your kids, she is not entitled to alimony and she cannot get your house. She can leave with only what she brought to the table and whatever money she contributed to the family funds.”

Problem here is that the system is big business and doesn’t really give a damn about your prenuptial agreement. First, children cannot sign a prenup, any children produced in the marriage will void the prenup. Secondly, divorce attorneys routinely get prenups thrown out on the grounds that they were signed under duress or are categorically unfair/unjust whateverthehell. The family courts are drunk on their power and men’s hard earned resources.

True story #1

A Christian man I knew from church for many years started a business, worked very hard for a decade, married started a family. Once the kids were in school wife stuck her nose in the business. Later he discovered wife and employee were sexually involved… Long story short, family courts gave ex-wife primary custody of the kids, the home and **the business**. Now the whore and her badboy run the man’s former business. If thats not special enough try true story number two.

True story #2

A Christian man I knew with three daughters was going to bible college and the almost automatically accompanying financial hardship. Wife wasn’t haaaaappy, divorced him and went in search of romance and hot sex with badboys. Years later I met up with the daughters with whom I had been friends. In the course of their mothers Eat,Pray,Love escapades all three of the girls had been sexually molested by one or more of the losers their mother whored around with.

I have heard that some unmarried women use birth control to control irregular periods. No idea if that is valid however as I am not a doctor.

@REASON
Thanks for the suggestion, but:
a) The marital property is controlled by the state and their family courts. Any pre-nup is subject to dismissal by the presiding judge. The CURRENT willingness of the judges in a particular state to set aside signed agreements can be known, so a man can look into what province/state is best for this. Unfortunately, the precedents and laws in a state could change.
b) The “no alimony” is subject to the same issues noted for “a” above. And is partly irrelevant due to “d” below.
c) Stating who gets the children is irrelevant. The judge decides that, and your signed agreement is worthless. In practice, whether they call it sole custody or joint, the majority of the custody goes to the woman.
d) Regardless of any agreement, the judge sets the child support. The term “child support” is a lie however. It is not based on actual support requirements, but rather how much the father makes. And the mother can spend it on anything, without accountability. This is why alimony is not too significant; the mother makes her serious money through using the children as “mutilated beggars”.

The only limitations I know of for these problems are:
a) a family trust that owns the house and other valuables. So the husband does not own them, and thus the family court judge cannot claim them. But the rules will be different for each state. At the least I am sure he would need to set up this trust before marriage. A lawyer previously suggested the trust might not be adequate, although I have seen news articles indicating a judge failed to raid the trust, so it might depend on how the trust is created and what state you are in.
b) ensure incomes of the spouses are equal. Having a business, where both h & w get director’s fees, may help with this.
c) Be prepared to walk away from the family, leaving for another country. Make sure princess knows she will get nothing if she breaks up the family. He cannot stop her from using the police to steal his children, but he can stop the system from turning him into a slave.
d) The best and only fool-proof method is to not marry or have children in this country. Not really that difficult, since I find most masculine women to be undesirable. Which is not to say my God-given desires do not exist; simply that the north American women I typically see choose to be inadequate.

“It’s prescribed like candy at the doctor’s office for all sorts of unrelated things. Seriously, take any female in or past adolescence to the doctor with a chronic complaint.”

Okay great! From now on all my online dating profiles will start with the following qualification.
**ATTENTION: I only date women who cannot take hormonal birth control due to severe side effects!**
Then when they ask WTF? I’ll simply explain that it makes it more difficult for them to whore around. Doesn’t that seem reasonable to you?

@Dale
As I explained above, it’s not only irregular periods but basically any chronic condition you could think of. Including acne (wut?). Seriously, doctors seem to have been programmed to put all women on contraceptives for off label purposes (i.e. not what the drug was originally intended for). Hell, I know 11 year olds who were put on the pill. That’s just crazy.

ER:
those two stories are very bad. And, unfortunately, typical. A woman in my family divorced, lived with a few guys, married a couple of them, and her daughter was sexually touched by one of the sons of the man coming in.
Too bad children do not stay with their father. Statistically, the biological father is the best protector the children have.

@embracingreality
Feel free. Unlimited access to contraceptives has increased both sexes ability to whore around *without consequences* other than certain STDs. If a woman cannot use some of them, it’s more likely she will be more careful, possibly more faithful.

@Dale
Welcome to managed care. The attitude is the same across the west, except Germany oddly enough. They fell deep into the hippy dippy homeopathic organic compost heap, so intentionally introducing hormones into young girls doesn’t strike them as a good option. Other than that… The appeal to “the doctor knows best” rather dissipates when one knows a lot of them.

“My advice to all unmarried men in this Climate is VERY SIMPLE. If you want to get married, make sure you get a pre-nup, iron clad and legally binding that says if you wife wants to divorce she cannot take your kids, she is not entitled to alimony and she cannot get your house. She can leave with only what she brought to the table and whatever money she contributed to the family funds.”

Any such pre-nup gets tossed out immediately. Child custody and CS = alimony cannot be changed by any pre-nup. That you don’t know this means you don’t know anything about the subject. CS is specifically structured to bypass pre-nups, since the belief is that children can only benefit by custody going to the mother, and then the mother getting money from the father (which she does not have to spend on the kids, mind you).

A pre-nup maybe, if you are lucky, can shield some of your other assets, but even then, only if it is not too different from what the law would dictate. Judges routinely throw out pre-nups that don’t give enough to the woman.

The only real value of a pre-nup is to seed enough doubt in the woman’s mind that she may not get that much, and thus does not frivorce in the first place.

Prenups aside, in my state, gains in the value of non-marital property are marital property.

Think on that one a little bit.

First, you’ve got to jump through all kinds of hoops to make sure you don’t poison things and convert your non-marital asset into a marital asset. I don’t know for a fact, but I can’t imagine that if it’s lost value, that you can set that loss against marital assets. However, if it has gained in value, the presumption seems to be that she must have done something to contribute to that gain, and even though it’s still a non-marital asset, and you own it 100%, she has a claim against you for part of the gain in value.

@embracingreality
Eh, morality and risk reduction are separate topics. I find people are much more open to the later than the former, even though the hope is that they will eventually fall into moral thinking after behaving rightly.

The “Get a pre-nup” advice is dangerous because the very existence of that pre-nup demonstrates that those who signed it did not intend for their marriage to be permanent. IOW, the couple that signs a pre-nup goes to the wedding already proven to be unable to marry as Christians.

1) get an “iron clad pre nup” specifying she gets no rights to the kids;

2) make sure you don’t marry any woman who can take contraceptives without getting sick;

3) Game her (this solves everything cuz … It’s biblical… You can look it up); and (of course)

4) always post online using using your real name or else you are a coward.

Dalrock provides some great stuff but it has become painfully obvious to me that many posters here are completely disconnected from the legal/social realities of our time. Many frankly sound like children who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Others just sound unhinged.

To any newbies here 90% of the poster advice can be boiled down to: …” You see, your problem is that you aren’t more like me [the poster currently offering up ‘biblical’ wisdom]”. “You didn’t act like me. What did you expect?”

If you are a man already caught in the system, there is little for you in the comments here (unless you have a time machine and can go back and do things ‘da biblical’ way like asdgamer, et al).

Pro tip: seek advice for real problem$ from people you can sue if they mess up; stay physically hard; get a few friends you can trust (even if it’s only a dog); remember that there’s no such thing as to much ammunition; and stay away from the comments section here.**

**posters like embracingreality are solid but he’s an exception that proves the rule, I’m afraid.

There is no wife by law. Women know it and wouldn’t have it any other way. Far more effort should be spent on a male birth control pill, MGTOW/PUA, surrogacy/ artificial wombs, sex bots etc.
In other words the mental effort spent trying to find a wife is like the old joke of looking for a lost coin where the light is better.
Marriage is plain Irresponsible for a man now days.

unless you have a time machine and can go back and do things ‘da biblical’ way like asdgamer

Oh, yeah, the fact that I have been going out weekends solo and am still married and getting lots of sex is just so much chopped liver. Solid experience and empirical evidence are “going in a time machine”. lol

And you have shown that the Bible and Game are incompatible on my blog posts about the Song of Solomon. You make some powerful arguments. [Goes looking on the blog in the Song of Solomon category.] Hmm, wonder where they went?

REASON: I won’t rewrite/address what others have corrected here re: your post, but I see your perspective as one of the problems in our culture. PEOPLE DON’T ACTUALLY REALIZE AND/OR BELIEVE HOW BIASED THE SYSTEM IS.

Every divorced guy has heard someone make some presumption about what could have been done, should be done, filed, argued, petitioned in court. Family Law are called “Equity Courts” (ironically), and the reality is, a woman can do in family court, under oath through filings, actual testimony, etc, things that if she did in criminal court would lead to perjury charges, or in civil court court, a demand for legal fees. In family court, women and their attorneys run WILD through pleadings, discovery, and testimony–all to deplete your money.

Every guy I know who has litigated has had some issue come up–a material one–where he stops, scratches his head and asks his attorney, “Can she do that? she just lied to the court about XYZ” only to be told “they really don’t care”. She literally cannot lose, even when she violates procedures, lies, fails to disclose things, fails to abide by joint orders (like parenting class). She is unstoppable.

People don’t realize that,and your post is wishful thinking that comes from a culture that hides what happens in divorce/family court, like it hides what abortions really are and do to the unborn. Keeps women in the clear.

Btw, I don’t “despise” your words, I just think it’s quite obvious from the things you have written here that you have a very tenuous grasp on the reality of the family court system. I also think that guys who use the terms “alpha” and “beta” etc. when speaking with other men come off as really I nsecure people. Finally, the bible is a everlasting font of wisdom. People like you and me are not. You should try to keep the two straight in your mind.

“When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.” Proverbs 11:2.
“One’s pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.” Proverbs 29:23.
“Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.” Proverbs 27:2.
“Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” Proverbs 26:12.
“Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.” Romans 12:16.

The real reason why feminism thrives is because western men are too cynical, too weak, too fearful and too lazy to stand against it. It has been said that wealth softens people. I think the western man’s success is his downfall. He got so successful he became too weak to assert his manhood against the feminist ideology. That is why feminism stole his wife, his daughters, his wealth, his lifestyle and his culture. All the while, all he does is relegate himself to the corner of the web and whine.
But if the western man would only stand for himself, and go for what he wants, he’ll be surprised that the enemy all along has been himself. His mind has always been the hindrance to his success.

In life, confidence is everything, even when you face a pride of lions and unarmed.

So what solutions are proposed. Specifically with the issue of out of wedlock births.

We have say 10 to 15% of the males who are natural PUA and are fine with leaving the women and not supporting any children.
How do we punish them without incentivizing women to abandon their husbands? Being one of the other side of things, I find this a bit of a conundrum. I agree it would help if we shamed women to stop allowing themselves to be used. I mean shamming is ok if you smoke tobacco or are over weight, but not if you engage in behaviors that are also bad, but approved – like divorce, promiscuity, etc.

so back to my original question. How do we adjust things, understanding that this might be a multi generational fight? What should be done to make life better for all? And I don’t expect a single answer/solution, but a sort of ‘these things must be done.’ And I understand that politics is down river of culture so we have to work there also. But any ideas?

Edit for previous post – by the “natural PUA” I mean those who would do this regardless of what sort of culture they are in, this is their natural bent. I suspect about 50% of males (or more or less) will behave like PUA if the culture makes it easier to act that way, and not if the culture makes it clear that ‘shotgun marriages are a valid solution.’ I could be wrong on the % that will ‘go with the flow’ My main point is that some guys are jerks, and those guys deserve to be punished, but as usual, it is everyone else who gets hammered by the changes.

For those commenting about getting married in this environment today, I would recommend reading deep strength’s many posts on vetting potential spouses. As for me, I married in Illinois in March, 2015. My circumstances and reasons for marrying:

1. My wife regularly attended a strong biblical church
2. Grew up in a smallish bedroom community outside the larger city.
3. Had already worked several years in a non Christian workplace and had not succumbed to negative influences there.
4. Lived a block away from her blue collar parents and took me to meet them on our second date.
5. Addamently opposed to divorce.
6. Was homeschooled
7. Extremely family oriented
8. Had only one previous boyfriend, was a virgin, and I took her first kiss.
9. She is close friends with many ladies that are 80+ yrs old.
10. Stuck with me when we were dating and I was in the hospital for two weeks going blind (fortunately recovered)
About me-
1. 6′, decent shape. Farm & homeschool background.
2. Was very clear and direct in my intentions.
3. I have dual citizenship in the U.S. And Switzerland.
4. Have a career with some potential

Obviously I still live in country where things could go south quick. However, I do believe with the correct vetting and vision/plan, it is possible to marry in the U.S. as a Christian man. However, expect the search to be a long one. There are very few women worth marrying in the U.S. today.

‘The “Get a pre-nup” advice is dangerous because the very existence of that pre-nup demonstrates that those who signed it did not intend for their marriage to be permanent. IOW, the couple that signs a pre-nup goes to the wedding already proven to be unable to marry as Christians.’

You are leaving out the proverbial 800 lb gorilla: No-fault (aka his-fault) divorce is a de facto pre-nup tilted entirely in the woman’s favor. And it is the very definition of ironclad. Civil marriage became a fraud when no-fault became the law of the land. It wasn’t immediately obvious, but anyone who doesn’t yet “get it” is living in a fantasy land.

But I do agree that a man getting a pre-nup is dangerous, primarily because it would give him a false sense of security.

Drugs are massively overused today. Very few boys would not be diagnosed with ADHD today and get the matching drugs, as one example. Look into vaccines if you want to see an example of “a drug is always right” approach to medicine.

A huge danger is that some things do have merit, such as at least some vaccines, but the modern worship at the altar of science and medicine is leading to a lot of stupidity. I would argue that it is because humans need something to worship, but that is a different thread.

I definitely share your skepticism of the overuse of birth control pills for such a wide range of issues. It wouldn’t shock me to find out that some doctors prescribe them for such applications because they see it as a stealth way to get around old fashioned parents and such.

I don’t believe they will be effective due to the legal climate and the willingness of judges to legislate. We need to change to make marriage a permanent choice, not a temporary one, but I don’t see that happening without a major breakdown forcing the change from the outside.

REASON @ November 8, 2015 at 8:29 pm:
“When they went to court the Husband told the Judge that he was Married under Muslim Law and as a result he should be divorced under Muslim law. the Judge agreed.”

The respect our feminists and Elites have for Islam is the real story here. Wake me when a secular judge says, “wait, this is a Christian marriage? Then our laws don’t apply.”

I would argue that it is because humans need something to worship, but that is a different thread.

Yes, it would be a different thread….about homeopathy and naturopathy and foodie-ism and diets with catchy names. I was listening to a preacher on the radio yesterday complaining how we all look to medicine to extend life even unto immortality and my wife and i almost spoke over each other to say, huh…..not so much….its those eschewing medicine and peddling fads and flavors along with banning this and that who are the most faithful adherents to the idolatry that health (and culinary uniqueness) has become.

…Had only one previous boyfriend, was a virgin, and I took her first kiss…..

Congrats on your wedding and the beginning of your new life.
A story like this is proof that, contrary to what some folks tend to claim, there are still decent women in America, if only the would-be husband is willing to work hard to look for them.

Cuckservatives claim to be the party of liberty and the American Dream…

They are truly the party of misandry. No group is as zealous about “making feminism work” as the cuckservatives. That they fight tooth and nail to uphold feminist institutions such as marriage 2.0 and child support, yet allowed marriage 1.0 to be destroyed without so much as a whisper, tells you everything you need to know about cuckservatives.

As for the MGTOW/MIGTWUA thing: I simply don’t see how it will bring justice or reverse the current situation…”

The present day feminist utopia is not cost-free, but is utterly dependent on beta male subsidization at all levels. The male non-participation rate needs only to cross a certain threshold before feminism is in serious trouble, and that threshold may not be very high.

Remember, we now live in a world where things can change in the blink of an eye. MGTOW appeared to come out of nowhere. Just as quickly it could transform to a level where most (if not all) feminist institutions are seriously imperiled.

“Saving a Low Sex Marriage; A Man’s Guide To Dread, Seduction, and the Long Game”

Dread is not very effective at all in getting a woman to improve, lose weight, or provide anything beyond Starfish (albeit frequent) sex. Dread IS very effective at getting a woman to mate guard, duty sex, treat you with respect, and even provide unprompted blowjobs. There is some agreement that the latter is the most accurate metric for marriage success that we use over at Married Red Pill.

However, Dread is NOT good at getting her to self-improve and/or show real passion in her sexuality towards you. For that you need self-improvement (what I call passive Dread).

Further, your recommendations about marriage can and should be disregarded. You live in a bubble and do not understand how the legal system crushes men into dust. Women lie, cheat, play head games, and then lie again. They make wild, obviously untrue allegations in pleadings and with NO evidence the court denies you from even seeing your kids for 6 months and $10,000 in legal fees- and it is often 2 years or more before you can see your child without paying for a court “supervisor.” Imagine one day you are having a great time taking your kids to the mall and the next time you see them they are a year older and no longer even know you. They “impute” income to men who, say get a $20,000.00 bonus that year. Then the next year when sales are down guess what? Fuck you man, you still have to pay the amount of child support you owed when you were making more money. It is for the chillen don’t you know!

Marriage 2.0 is like Wargames. A strange game, professor, the only winning move is not to play.

Again, there seems to be a belief that some sort of ‘iron-clad pre-nup’ ensures that child custody goes to the father, and that CS payments are thus sidestepped.

This is flat-out wrong. Any matter involving children (even as fronts to funnel money to the woman) absolutely cannot be obstructed with a pre-nup. Such a pre-nup is null and void. CS is specifically designed to be exempt from pre-nups.

…but your faith in Dread game is overblown. I speak as a resident manosphere expert on Dread Game:

I also have some experience with Dread Game. Two years worth. And I don’t distinguish between improving oneself and going out solo. Both are Passive Dread. Both generate insecurity in women. See my post about Women’s Insecurity. https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/womens-insecurity/
Improving oneself raises one’s SMV, while going out solo allows Preselection and competition to take hold.

It’s true that our relationship has been less of a roller coaster ride for the last four months, so it’s too soon to say that we have achieved an optimal condition in our marriage. Time will tell.

You live in a bubble and do not understand how the legal system crushes men into dust. Women lie, cheat, play head games, and then lie again. They make wild, obviously untrue allegations in pleadings and with NO evidence the court denies you from even seeing your kids for 6 months and $10,000 in legal fees- and it is often 2 years or more before you can see your child without paying for a court “supervisor.” Imagine one day you are having a great time taking your kids to the mall and the next time you see them they are a year older and no longer even know you. They “impute” income to men who, say get a $20,000.00 bonus that year. Then the next year when sales are down guess what? Fuck you man, you still have to pay the amount of child support you owed when you were making more money. It is for the chillen don’t you know!

I really, really get this. I have been reading Dalrock and Rollo for a couple of years. Most of the comments, too. I was temporarily separated many moons ago. Kicked out of my house with no notice. On the street. Didn’t get to see my kids. My parents were separated and my mother told me that she could have my dad thrown in jail for nonpayment of child support, but she didn’t do that. I get the risk angle. Marriage 2.0 is very risky. All married people are in it now. If you’re going to be consistent, you should tell men to get out of marriage if it’s at all feasible–not merely to avoid entering it.

Men who want to marry tend to be “in love.” Emotional. Incapable of planning about marriage logically. If they can plan logically, then marriage may be feasible, if very risky. They need to understand the risk and plan accordingly. I suggested an ancient, well-tested strategy for taming a shrew. Or are you suggesting that William Shakespeare’s wisdom is to be ignored?

Again, if you’re going to be consistent, you should tell men to get out of marriage if it’s at all feasible–not merely to avoid entering it.

I think many of the conflicts you seem to get into here are due to your own inabilities to see (and appreciate) the gray areas in life. You’re not a mathematician, by chance? (No disrespect, and I say this as a guy with an undergrad math degree). For example:

All married people are in it now. If you’re going to be consistent, you should tell men to get out of marriage if it’s at all feasible–not merely to avoid entering it.

Are you saying that happily married bros should be encouraged to divorce a good woman and make any associated kids bastards, or are you merely illustrating a logical problem with the other dude’s argument? In the first case, I think you’re wrong. In the latter case, I think it might be a good point, though it reads as strident enough to be confused with case 1.

I think the consistent message of this blog is not that all women are bad (fuck you, mom!) or that people should never marry; but, that divorce is a crap move, to be entered into with the greatest possible trepidation, and avoided when absolutely necessary, especially if there are kids involved. That does not mean that men ought not be warned to marry wisely, as you point out. Just that men who are already in a marriage (even if they married foolishly) should work to make it better, rather than bailing out like some pathetic wimminz hoping to squat on some strange dick because she’s “unhaaaapy”.

Sure, if your wife is fucking strange men, or in prison/jail, or stealing your money, or uncontrollably violent, then you might need a divorce; but, most marriages aren’t like that. Moreover, reading this blog and those like it can help a man tame even the most annoying of shrews, and a husband owes it to his kids to exhaust all possible options before pulling the plug.

Boxer, I was using an argumentum ad absurdum against avoiding marriage, which was BPP’s position. I know, I know, that type of argument for some reason is hard for people to discern. Even philosophers have a hard time with it. Think of Paul Feyerabend’s detractors.

Your point that the marriage risk is due to divorce is really the point and that there’s no point in flippantly seeking divorce if you’re already married. That was the flaw in my argument. I ought to have charitably rephrased BPP’s argument.

I now say that it’s prudent for married men to plan for divorce if their wives start acting strangely.

I think many of the conflicts you seem to get into here are due to your own inabilities to see (and appreciate) the gray areas in life. You’re not a mathematician, by chance?

I believe ASDGamer has a diagnosis of Autism. Autists commonly have the perspective of black or white. It’s quite likely his work/career choice is related to this view. For example, I have self-diagnosed as “almost-ASD” and much prefer black/white, and I have worked primarily in computer programming/analysis. My 19-year-old son officially has ASD (original diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome [nomenclature now deprecated]) and he has great difficulty with “gray”, so I have a lot of experience of dealing with this black/white view.

I have found it helpful on this forum to learn about the regular commenters. Not surprisingly, their behavior here generally reflects their experiences and beliefs.

@Anon
I myself had a prenup (not personal but family funds, rather large possible inheritance from my father, so just tying up loose ends of the trust). Any cs or custody arrangements are not enforceable (not prenutial but postnuptial issue). Morality clauses may be, but the judge can throw them out as well. They are really only useful for the exact amount of pre-marital assets and/or family inheritance/family business etc. Other than that, think of them as a good way to understand well the person you are marrying. One caution is to make sure that each partner has basically equivalent legal power or else the whole thing is thrown out.

@ACThinker
One thing to remember is that out of wedlock births are largely a class issue. The further you go up the education/income ladder, the less likely the women OR their children will have out of wedlock births. However, among the middle educated (certifications of some kind) or low educated (no qualifications whatsoever) childbearing and marriage are almost entirely separate. Marriage is viewed from the soulmate/perfect happiness lens whereas children are what women do to make themselves happy.

So the real question is: why have the well educated/rich women retained a system that helps them while the poor have jettisoned it, although they are in the most need?

Boxer, I was using an argumentum ad absurdum against avoiding marriage, which was BPP’s position.

That’s what I assumed, but only after reading your entire riposte carefully. I always look for winking smilies and other “tells” to try and get sarcasm, which is often confusing over a text medium. Anyway, I think your points were well made. Often people come here with such skewed views (I don’t need no woman! Give me my robot sex doll and my aritficial womb already!) that they sound as kooky as any radical feminist.

How much longer must we endure this false narrative, that women who leave a marriage, ‘rally their resources and muster up “courage” and all that. They always make it sound like some strong, independent waitress packs her one bag, kisses little Johnny on the forehead and pulls out in her beat up ’79 Impala Wagon.

Instead, the reality is, most women who “leave”, don’t leave anything. The fathers finally leave the house, being convinced it will be “better for the kids” , or if she DOES leave, she takes the kids and quickly files for Pendente Lite, child support, and everything else–cash and prizes. The media CONTINUE to pretend that there’s something brave with leaving a man making $50k, who will be forced to pay the woman up to $2500 a month, and eventually turn over the house or sell it and give her the profits, pay for her attorney, etc.

ASD also acts like a single when he goes out dancing and gets in situations not appropriate for a married man. I would say Christian man, but I don’t know that he declares Jesus as his Lord. If he did, he would not be practicing some of the things he does.

I freely admit I would sin and divorce if it became intolerable for me, but I would never claim my personal choices were a virtue.

ASD also acts like a single when he goes out dancing and gets in situations not appropriate for a married man.

WTH does “acting like a single” mean? You sound like a churchian mangina, with your shaming. HTH do you know what’s appropriate for me? Are you the Omniscient Deity or something? lol Are you reading from the Churchian Book of Harley?

Re: Huffington Post article “‘I Left My Husband For Him, But He Didn’t Return The Favor”

I filed for divorce. … I was finally going to be happy — or so I thought. … I have learned so much about myself over the last 12 months I now know I deserve happiness and will not settle for anything less.

Iris Mauss, Ph.D., from the UC Berkeley Psychology Department presents the idea that seeking happiness leads to greater unhappiness. Mark Manson tells us “If you have to try to be happy, then you will never be happy.” June Gruber, Ph.D., is working on research to show the pursuit of happiness is associated with depression and bipolar disorder.

Perhaps Christian women should be required to read Gary Thomas’s book Sacred Marriage subtitled “What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?”

If the case is “keeping” a wife “happy”, then it is the undivorced conservative husband who believes he is doing it right, and anyone who gets divorced is doing it wrong. Doing it right means doing it like the condescending conservative.

Yeah, if you were taking care of things at home you wouldn’t have these problems. I wouldn’t say ‘conservative’ precisely; the ones I encounter in these sorts of fora are not so much ‘conservative’ as conceited and graced with enough effrontery you almost wish they’d get hit with some random strike to shut them up.

Sorry to be repetitive, but, again, I’m acquainted with not one but two young men (both shirttails) – one born in 1979 and the other in 1988 – whose marriages blew up within three years of their wedding date due to gross and contemptuous immorality by their wives. Now imagine yourself admonishing them that if they’d taken care of business at home this would not have happened. You cannot, because you’re not a Class AAA jackass. The father-in-law of one of these princesses never tried that gambit; he admitted after his daughter’s final escapade that they’d concealed her bipolar diagnosis….

If I were to discover that the Huffington Post was run by the devil himself, it would not surprise me one bit. Is there a single thing published there that does not promote destruction of the family and western civilization?

You might look at the Huffington Post link on “Happiness Entitlement” in my post above. It seems to me that the author’s primary point is that happiness should not have the importance it is given in Western society. If this approach were taken, I think there would be a tremendous improvement in the world.

Note: I realize that I may have happened to find the one Huff Post article that has positive value. 😦

As for the MGTOW/MIGTWUA thing: I simply don’t see how it will bring justice or reverse the current situation…”

Simple. Every man who drops out, disconnects, slacks off, goes on the ‘marriage strike’, etc., acts to increase the value of fathers and fatherhood by decreasing the number of chumps signing on to eventually be shaken down by the organized crime racketeers, kidnappers, child support extortionist, the liar lawyers, etc.

In any labor market, the fewer people willing to do a given job, the higher the compensation those who are willing to do it can demand.

So-called child support is an attempt to fix a problem that government itself has created. The supposedly “conservative” argument for so-called child support boils down to “I don’ wanna pay no taxes to support other people’s kids!” Eliminate the Welfare State and all her works and the motivation for ever more crushing State enforcement of Caesar’s so-called child support schemes evaporates.

By the way, if assignment of the custody of children to the female who whelped ’em is to somehow fit in with traditional sex role of maternal care during a child’s Tender Years,* then shouldn’t all welfare be paid to fathers rather than mothers? After all, the traditional sex role of supporting the household** is the man’s not the female’s.

As for the MGTOW/MIGTWUA thing: I simply don’t see how it will bring justice or reverse the current situation, unless lots of (young) men buy into it, and even then, IMHO the effect will only begin to be felt in the very long term (alas).
—“yac-yac”

IIRC, economists find that if at least 2% of supermarket customers shop around for the best price rather than just going to the closest supermarket, then supermarkets will compete on price. (They won’t compete on price alone, of course, some will compete on price plus service, or price plus speed of checkout, or price plus freshness of produce, or price plus stocking premium products, or price plus quality of meats… but price will be important in their competitive strategy.) The higher the percentage of price-sensitive customers there are, the more price-competitive supermarkets will tend to be.

Similarly, a surprisingly small percentage of men choosing to avoid a man-hostile marriage environment may put great pressure on the marriage market to curb female hostility toward men. I don’t know what that percentage would have to be, I’m just arguing that it’s smaller than it appears to the casual observer, a lot smaller.

Something else to consider when looking at the current marriage marketplace is the desire of females to marry a man older than themselves, all other things being equal. During periods of declining birth rates, there are more men of age X+n than females of age X. Females born during such a time perceive that marriageable men are abundant and relax in their pursuit of marriage. (This is reversed during periods of rising birth rates.) We are currently in a decades-long trend of declining birth rates, one that has been in place for so long that three generations of females consider the relative abundance of men to be normal. So normal do females consider their advantages in the marriage market that even a small perturbation in the number of marriageable men creates a flurry of “Where have all the good men gone” panic articles in the women’s interest magazines and TV time-wasters.

@Micha Elyi
>IOW, the couple that signs a pre-nup goes to the wedding already proven to be unable to marry as Christians

That is a very foolish statement. Perhaps your only experience with pre-nups, is with those that seek to enable the husband to divorce. Or, more likely, your experience is primarily hype and fear you have heard that fall into that category.
A wise man will insist on a pre-nup that, as much as possible, removes the Satanic rules taken from our legal systems, and replace them with wise and Godly rules from Scripture. Such as, a man’s wealth goes to his sons if he has them, daughters if not, and his closest relative (not wife) otherwise. 0% goes to the ex-wife.
Only way to do this in our legal climate is with a trust.
BTW, a trust will also do away with the nonsense of imputing half of any gain in the asset to the divorcing wife. This is especially important when you remember that our governments deliberately devalue our currencies each year. As a result, the price of everything, when expressed in currency (such as dollars), goes up. This falsely appears to demonstrate a rise in the value of the asset, just due to inflation.

“So-called child support is an attempt to fix a problem that government itself has created. The supposedly “conservative” argument for so-called child support boils down to “I don’ wanna pay no taxes to support other people’s kids!” Eliminate the Welfare State and all her works and the motivation for ever more crushing State enforcement of Caesar’s so-called child support schemes evaporates.”

Child support payments coincident to a marital dissolution are an antique practice, as were paternity suits. Prior to 1929, common provision took the form of institutional care through public agency – schools, asylums, sanitoriums, municipal hospitals, and work houses. At that time, a marital dissolution would have had implications for your propensity to seek out the services of the last of these and perhaps the next-to-last. Not the others.

If you’re proposing to get rid of ‘the Welfare State’, you’re proposing a set of arrangements characteristic of a predominanly agrarian society with a low man-land ratio. We have not lived in that world for a while.

I’m curious, if Francis W. Porretto is all about full disclosure then perhaps he should give us the name of his employer, personal e-mail, and home address? That way someone can get about the task of destroying his life forthwith.

You complicate it too much Art. Getting rid of the welfare state would be following the principle of stopping payment for things we don’t want. We get more of what we pay for. We get more people on welfare when we pay them to be on welfare.

Rare situations can override the principle, but you normally get more of whatever you pay for!

Why do we need to punish the PUA’s for their supposed abandonment of their children? Does the need to punish a few men somehow supersede the wrongs done to families and society at the hands of most of the women? Our society then and even now have always had promiscuous men. Back then it was much less. Now it seems more like a response from men to feminism and women being by and large sluts.

That said ACT’s thinkis is the same as has been discussed previously. We must always, always, always target men first. How about we leave the men alone and target womens behaviors, behaviors that by and large are such as to be causing most of these problems.

I would surmise that if we did this many of the PUA types would settle down and modify their behaviors conducive to stable family creation.

That is not accurate in the slightest. Try solving a local feral cat problem by fixing the males. Another one will pop up to service all the females.

We have to deal with the attitude that allows females to be irresponsible first. The lack of willing targets will do most of the needed work to fix the PUA problem. We reward those who are successful at being a PUA now.

Note that I have little love or compassion for true PUAs today. I won’t oppose them facing consequences for destroying civilitzation when that time final comes, though I doubt I will be alive then. They are parasites, but you have to deal with the health of the hosts first, if you want to solve the problem.

Too many women claim to hate PUAs, yet keep rewarding them. That must be the focus of any change.